Former 'Representative From Disney' Howard Berman Makes It Official: Starts Lobbying For Hollywood

from the hollywood-howard-gets-his-payday dept

For years, Hollywood's biggest player in Congress when it came to copyright policy was Rep. Howard Berman. He was often referred to as the Representative from Disney for his willingness to always push for more expansive copyright policies. While he was sometimes called the Rep from Hollywood, I believe his actual district was "adjacent to" Hollywood, though it "included parts of" Hollywood as well. Either way, in 2012, thanks to redistricting, Berman went up against another longterm LA Representative, Brad Sherman, and lost. Berman quickly became a lobbyist, and now it's come out that he's officially lobbying for the MPAA on "issues related to intellectual property protection" because of course he is. Not much else to say about this other than it's yet another example of the revolving door and the nature of back-scratching that happens in DC.

Reader Comments

but ... but ... but ... this is a democracy! This is what the people want!!! It is just your opinion that the political system has been bought and paid for, my opinion disagrees with you and the courts and the political system itself disagrees with you.

Re:

Well, what do you expect?

The U.S.A. is a society based on capitalism. Any sin can be forgiven if it earned you enough money. The U.S. were founded and built based on theft and genocide of the natives, and the more reckless your forefathers were, the more renowned and influencial you became.

Those are the values the society was made from, and being sort of a republic with sort of democratic procedures, the values that the voters adore become amplified in the values of their representatives.

This is what you have learnt to admire and respect. As long as a billionaire earns more respect than a college professor and a successful arms trader has higher social standing than a conscientious objector having served a prison term for his convictions, this is what you'll get.

If you want this to change, stop adulating big money. Stop respecting those who got a good price for selling their conscience. As long as their choice to join government-controlled organized crime organizations does not lead to social ostracism, there is no reason for them to stop.

I don't get this Masnick. Berman does a good job championing an issue that is important to the largest industry (and employer) in his district and you castigate him for for continuing that work after leaving office? Would you object to US Rep. Morgan Griffith, R-Salem, VA working for the American Coal Council after he left office? For someone who purports to value individual freedom within the workplace (and elsewhere) you seem totally blinded by your loathing of copyright.

Re: Re:

In both cases their constituencies (corporate and individuals) are significant stakeholders in the causes they took up. Berman got put into a D vs. D election due to redistricting. He was trying to continue to serve in Congress but lost. It's hard to see that there was an agreement while he was in office. The fact is that while in office he became very knowledgable of the issues and familiar with the agencies and key people that surround the issue. He is valuable to the MPAA. Griffiths is still serving. By the end of his tenure he will occupy the same space as Berman on the coal issue. He'll be extraordinarily valuable to the Coal Council.

When you get hired by another company, it is likely because you have developed an expertise while in your former job. You have a skill set that is valuable to your new company. It's really not very different. And remember that the game is played on both sides of the issue. Guess who work's for FCC chief, Tom Wheeler? Masnick's friend Gigi Sohn, the former Executive Director of Public Knowledge. Interesting that she appears to be on board with tiered service.

Re: Re: Re:

"The fact is that while in office he became very knowledgable of the issues and familiar with the agencies and key people that surround the issue."

Politicians shouldn't (be allowed to) run for office so that they can become more familiar with how to game the system effectively giving them the knowledge to disproportionately influence politics. That's not fair to yhe people that government are supposed to govern.A politician willing to use his knowledge that he gained in office to then betray the American people by trying to help an industry interest get disproportionate representation is probably a politician that should never have been elected in the first place. This should not be permitted.

Re: Re: Re:

"He is valuable to the MPAA."

Which is partly why he should not be allowed to work for the MPAA as a lobbyist.

"You have a skill set that is valuable to your new company. It's really not very different"

It's very different. A skill gained in the public sector should not be used to help a company you were regulating better game the system. This should not be permitted. When a politician leaves office they should be forced to make an honest living. It is dishonest to get elected so that you can use what you learned in office to become a lobbyist and game the system. If you honestly can't see the difference then you are mentally retarded. However I think it's more of a case of you being morally lacking.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

When a politician leaves office they should be forced to make an honest living.

Talk about teaching someone to swim by throwing them in the deep end, I mean, it's not like they'd have any experience in 'honest' anything, how are they supposed to know how to 'make an honest living'? /s

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

The argument that the shills around here come up with for allowing the revolving door to continue seems to be that because being in office has helped give them skills and connections to better game the system for the industries they were regulating we should then allow them to use those skills and connections to better game the system. Such skills and connections are very valuable to those industries that want undemocratic laws passed.

The main reason that the revolving door should not be allowed to continue is because it creates a potential conflict of interest between politicians and the industry interests they were allowed to regulate. This potential conflict of interest maybe abused by industry interests wanting to game the system. That should not be permitted. That those politicians have additionally acquired the skill set and connections to better game the system as an added bonus is not reason the revolving door favor should be allowed to continue but it's even more reason the revolving door problem needs to be fixed.

and for the shills to not see the difference between a skill gained in a private sector job being used by someone who moved from one job to another and a skill gained in a public sector job being used to betray the public that the politician is supposed to represent while in office for personal gain is disingenuous.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

God are you stupid. Agencies and commissions regulate. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, USDA, EPA, etc. They enforce the laws that are passed by Congress. Since you clearly don't understand how it works, please feel free to stop demonstrating your ignorance at every opportunity.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I understand how it works. They both regulate in that they both pass laws and regulations. Instead of changing the subject and arguing inconsequential and miniscule semantics (and still being wrong about that) why not focus your attention on addressing the issues being discussed. Stop having to be spoon fed every little thing.

Re:

Re: Re:

I don't think you realize the importance of the motion picture and television industry in his district. There are tons of people who make their livings that way in the district. Not rich actors and producers but grips, makeup artists, prop makers, cameramen, drivers, extras, etc. Without the employers they don't have jobs. And these are good middle class jobs that come with health insurance and pensions.

Re:

"For someone who purports to value individual freedom within the workplace (and elsewhere) you seem totally blinded by your loathing of copyright."

There is a difference between valuing freedom within the private sector and being critical of potential conflicts of interest between government employees and industry. Someone working for the private sector is implied to do so to maximize their own personal profits and further their own interests. Someone working for the government should do so to serve the public interest. When their personal interests conflict with the public interest that is something that should be very carefully looked at.

Re: Re:

Someone working for the government should do so to serve the public interest.

That may be true of a bureaucrat, but not a member of Congress. They are there to represent the interests of their constituents- not the broader public interest. That's why you will never see nor should expect Rep. Griffith to be an advocate for cap-and-trade or other climate change measures. His constituents are in cal country.

Re: Re: Re:

I understand that way too many Congress members are often in office to represent themselves and their own personal interests but the point is that they should be serving the public interest. At least if we are to believe this is a democracy and their decisions are representative of what the people as a whole want. Otherwise you are just admitting this is not a democracy (or a constitutional republic) and our laws may run counter to the public interest.